You are on page 1of 4

People v. Tiozon victim and saw him sprawled on the ground.

When he asked
the victim who shot him, the victim was already gasping for
1. Tiozon was charged for violation of PD 1866 and murder. He breath and could no longer talk. Thereafter, he saw a gun
pleaded not guilty. near the body of the victim. Moved by his desire to bring the
2. FACTS ACCNDG TO THE WIFE: At around 11pm, while the said gun to the wife of the victim, he picked the same, but
victim and his wife were sleeping, they were awakened by after he got hold of the gun, he suddenly realized that the
the accused's loud knocks on their door. The accused policemen might see him holding it, so he threw the very
appeared drunk and the victim welcomed him to their same gun to the grassy area; he then ran towards the house
house. When they sat, the accused showed a gun to her of the victim and he informed the wife of the latter that her
husband [victim] and the latter even toyed with it. The wife husband was shot to death; he returned to the place where
walked a few steps away from the two but when she looked he left the body of the victim but the body of the latter was
back, they werent there already. 5 minutes later and/or no longer there; he later found out that townspeople carried
after she heard 2 gun shots, the accused knocked on their the body of the victim towards the main road; when the
door and he told her that he shot her husband. When she policemen arrived he was ordered to go with them at the
went to her husband, they sought help from their neighbor, Kalookan Police Headquarters; However, he admitted that it
even the accused helped them in carrying the victim was him who accompanied the policemen in retrieving the
towards the main road. She pushed the accused and even fatal gun at the grassy area at the back of his house.
without the latters help, they were able to reach the main 6. RTC Accused guilty. the court a quo relied on circumstantial
road; after which, some of her neighbors arrived bringing evidence because the prosecution failed to present an
with them lights; thereafter, Kalookan policemen arrived and eyewitness who could give an account as to the actual
so she caused the arrest of the accused. shooting incident.
3. TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS Pat. Orlando Valencia of the The following are among the circumstances which points to the
Kalookan Police Force on the witness stand testified that on culpability of the accused. [RTCs BASIS OF ITS DECISION, huhu
February 24, 1989 in line with his duty as policeman. guys explain ko isa isa sa held]
a. A shooting incident was reported to him so he went
to the crime scene where he saw the lifeless body of 1) That the widow of the victim saw the accused holding a gun
the victim and the accused whose body is full of immediately before shooting incident happened;
blood stains.
b. Upon instruction of Pfc.Alilam, he together with some 2) That accused was the last person seen in the company of the
Kalookan policemen accompanied the accused in victim immediately before the latter was shot to death;
retrieving the firearm whom the accused threw at the
grassy area particularly at the back of the latters
house and aside from the firearm they also recovered 3) That it was the accused who purposely went to the house of the
two(2)spent bullets and three live ammunitions . victim on that fatal evening; The testimony of the accused that he
4. NBI Ballistician Ernie Magtibay: paraffin test of the accused was merely passing in front of the house of the victim when the
yielded negative results from presence of nitrates. latter who was standing at the window of his house called him up is
5. FACTS ACCDNG TO THE DEFENSE: He [accused] was on his less credible than the testimony of the widow of the victim, that
way home from work when he passed by the house of the they were already aslept (sic) inside their house when or the
accused and the victim called him. When he was about to aforesaid time accused knocked at their door.
enter the victims house, the latter poked a gun at him
which he grabbed, and the victims wife saw him holding the 4) That it was the accused who guided the policemen as to the
said gun. He returned the gun to the victim and the latter place where the fatal gun was recovered. Here the Court believes
tucked in his waistline. They had beer, and they went out to that the gun was purposely hid at the grassy area at the back
buy some more. After buying, the victim left ahead of the portion of accused's house. The story of the accused that he picked
accused because he has to answer the call of nature. While the gun for the purpose of bringing it to the widow of the victim but
urinating, he heard 2 gun shots to which he followed the for fear that the policemen might see him holding the gun, he then
decided to throw it to the place where it was recovered, was too The killing of a person with the use of an unlicensed firearm
flimsy to merit belief. Firstly, what is his reason for bringing it to the may give rise to separate prosecutions for
widow of the victim when he surely knew fully well that it will be (a)violationofSection1ofP.D.No.1866 and (b) violation of
the policemen who will investigate the case. Secondly, he knew for either Article 248 (Murder) or Article 249 (Homicide) of the
a fact, that the said gun could lead as to the identity of the Revised Penal Code. The accused cannot plead one as a bar
assailant of the victim, why then he threw it at the grassy area to the other; or, stated otherwise, the rule against double
when he could easily leave the same to the place where he picked jeopardy cannot be invoked because the first is punished by
it up. a special law while the second, homicide or murder, is
punished by the Revised Penal Code.
5) The testimony of the wife that after hearing two successive Since the informations were for separate offense the first
gunshots, accused went back to her house and informed there (sic) against a person and the second against public peace and
that he accidentally shot her husband deserves merit, Besides, the order one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under
Court sees no reason for the wife to concoct such story that would the rule on double jeopardy.
point to the accused as the culprit specially so that had not the However, to justify the imposition of the increased penalty
accused became (sic) the prime suspect in this case, he would be under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 because of the resulting
the best person to be used as a prosecution witness, with more crime of homicide or murder, the prosecution must allege in
reason that from the evidence presented, it appears that the widow the information and prove by the quantum of evidence
of the victim harbours no ill-feeling towards the accused otherwise, required for conviction violation of said section and, more
she would have prevented accused accused's entry in her house on specifically, the use of an unlicensed firearm and the
that fatal evening. commission of homicide or murder.
The information in this case is sufficient in form and
6) The testimony of the wife that accused, immediately after the substance. It alleges illegal possession of a firearm and of
shooting incident took place admitted to her having accidentally murder, The latter is covered by the clause "which firearm
shoot (sic) the victim is admissible evidence against the accused was used with treachery and evident premeditation in
declarant since this is covered by the rule on res gestae or one of shooting the victim, which caused his death.
an exception to the hearsay rule. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to convict an
accused, it is necessary that the following requisites must
7) The testimony of the accused that he does not own the gun and be satisfied: (a) there must be more than one circumstance,
that it is but (sic) the accused (sic) who owns the same and in fact (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
the latter even tucked it in his waistline immediately before the proven, and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
shooting incident happened is improbable, for, how come then that such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
the assailant was able to drew (sic) the gun from the waistline of Judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence
the victim and fired (sic) the same towards the back portion of the can be upheld only if the circumstances proven constitute
victim's body. Is it not that the natural reaction of a person was to "an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
face the person who suddenly and without permission drew conclusion which points to the defendant, to the exclusion of
something from one's waistline. all others, as the guilty person


ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in holding the accused guilty of
violation of pd 1866 and murder. MODIFIED. The court a quo was correct that more than one
circumstantial evidence were duly proved and that these
HELD: ACCUSED not guilty of violation of PD 1866 and only guilty of circumstances point, beyond reasonable doubt, to the
HOMICIDE, not murder. accused-appellant as the one who shot and killed the
HOWEVER, AS TO THE 6TH CIRCUMSTANCE, TESTIMONY OF THE Records and the evidence fail to disclose that the
WIFE AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE prosecution presented any evidence to prove that the
The court does not agree that the wifes testimony was part accused-appellant was not authorized to possess the firearm
of the res gestae, and held that there was a misapplication alleged in the information. And, contrary to the finding of
of the rule. Under the aforesaid Section 36, statements may the trial court, there was no sufficient evidence to prove the
be deemed as part of the res gestae if they are made by a presence of treachery.
person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
circumstances thereof. Statements accompanying an The prosecution did not offer any evidence to prove that the
equivocal act material to the issue and giving it a legal accused-appellant had no license to possess or carry the
significance may also be received as part of the res gestae, firearm in question; it however, threw the burden on the
and therefor an exception to the hearsay rule. accused-appellant to prove that he has that authority.
In the instant case, however, the questioned o The mere fact that the adverse party has the
testimony of the wife of the victim is not hearsay. She control of the better means of proof of the fact
testified on what the accused-appellant told her, not alleged, should not relieve the party making
what any other party, who cannot be cross-examined, the averment of the burden of proving it. This
told her. The accused-appellant's statement was an is so, because a party who alleges a fact must
"oral confession", not a part of res gestae, which he be assumed to have acquired some knowledge
can easily deny if it were not true, which he did in thereof, otherwise he could not have alleged
this case. it.
Moreover, even assuming that the testimony of the wife of There being no proof that accused-appellant had no license
the victim on the alleged statement of the accused- to possess the firearm in question, he could not be
appellant is hearsay, the latter is barred from convicted for illegal possession of a firearm.
questioning its admission due to his failure to object
thereto at the time the testimony was given. The TREACHERY
transcript of the stenographic notes of the testimony There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
of Rosalina Magat vda. de Bolima, wife of the victim, crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms
clearly shows the absence of an objection. in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
AS TO THE 7th CIRCUMSTANCE: defense which the offended party might make, which means
that no opportunity was given to the latter to do so. It
Something is wrong with the opening clause reading: The cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and
testimony of the accused that he does not own the gun and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing
that it is but the accused who owns the same and in fact the itself.
latter even tucked it. The words but the accused should People v. Manalo - The fact that the fatal wounds were
have been the deceased. found at the back of the deceased does not, by itself,
compel a finding of treachery. Such a finding must be based
on some positive proof and not merely an inference drawn
WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED BEYOND more or less logically from hypothetical facts. The
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR ILLEGAL suddenness of an attack is not, of itself, enough to
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND WHETHER THE KILLING WAS constitute treachery when the method of the killing does not
ATTENDED BY THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY positively show that the assailant thereby knowingly
AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION. intended to ensure the accomplishment of his purpose
without risk to himself from any defense which the victim
might put up. In other words, to sustain a finding of
treachery, the means, method or form of attack must
be shown to have been deliberately adopted by the